map_to_unity

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the tool maps constraints to anchors, auto-layout to layout groups, suggests components, and includes confidence scores and warnings for unknown constraints/unsupported effects. This goes beyond a simple 'maps' statement, though it does not detail output format or side effects (likely none).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then provides specific mapping details and output features. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral aspects: input (Figma frame), output (Unity UGUI spec), specific transformations, and notable output characteristics (confidence scores, warnings). It does not mention the exact output format or limitations beyond 'unknown constraints/unsupported effects', but overall it is adequate for a mapping tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about mapping constraints and auto-layout but does not directly elaborate on the parameters themselves (e.g., canvas_width/canvas_height semantics). It does not subtract from schema value, but also doesn't add meaningful parameter-specific insight.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb (Produces) and resource (Unity UGUI mapping spec) from a Figma frame, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It further differentiates from sibling map_to_* tools by detailing Unity-specific mappings (RectTransform anchors, layout groups, suggested components). This is a clear, non-tautological statement of function.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context: it is for converting Figma frames to Unity UGUI specifications. While it does not explicitly say 'use this instead of map_to_react' or list exclusions, the platform-specific wording along with sibling tool names implies when to choose it. It lacks explicit when/when-not guidance but the context is unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.